User login
-
Patient whips out smartphone and starts recording: Trouble ahead?
Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.
Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.
With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?
These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.
The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.
In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”
While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”
It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.
“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”
Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”
The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.”
There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
The age of video and telehealth
What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.
Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”
He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”
Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”
In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”
COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
How taping can help patients
Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.
“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”
Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.
This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
For better or worse
Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”
Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”
To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”
In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”
Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?”
More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.
Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.
With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?
These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.
The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.
In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”
While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”
It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.
“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”
Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”
The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.”
There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
The age of video and telehealth
What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.
Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”
He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”
Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”
In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”
COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
How taping can help patients
Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.
“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”
Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.
This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
For better or worse
Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”
Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”
To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”
In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”
Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?”
More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.
Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.
With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?
These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.
The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.
In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”
While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”
It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.
“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”
Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”
The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.”
There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
The age of video and telehealth
What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.
Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”
He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”
Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”
In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”
COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
How taping can help patients
Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.
“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”
Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.
This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
For better or worse
Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”
Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”
To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”
In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”
Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?”
More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC: All adults should be eligible for Pfizer, Moderna boosters
on its vaccine recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.
They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.
The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.
More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one. About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.
In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.
Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older. But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own. Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.
Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.
He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.
Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”
“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.
The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.
Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine. Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.
The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick. Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster. Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.
The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary. Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot. Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.
Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given. There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination. Most of the reported cases are still being studied.
on its vaccine recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.
They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.
The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.
More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one. About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.
In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.
Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older. But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own. Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.
Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.
He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.
Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”
“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.
The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.
Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine. Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.
The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick. Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster. Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.
The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary. Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot. Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.
Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given. There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination. Most of the reported cases are still being studied.
on its vaccine recommendations.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended that all adults be eligible for a third dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, at least 6 months after their second dose.
They also strengthened a recommendation that everyone over the age of 50 should get a third dose, whether or not they have an underlying health condition that may increase their risk from a COVID-19 infection.
The committee voted 11 to 0 in favor of both policies.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must now sign off on both policies, which she is expected to do.
More than 70 million adults are now eligible for booster shots in the United States, but only about 31 million people have received one. About half of those who have been boosted are over the age of 65.
In a recent survey, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 4 in 10 younger adults said they were unsure if they qualified for a booster.
Under the current policy, boosters are recommended for everyone age 65 and older. But people who are younger than age 65 are eligible for boosters if they have an underlying health condition or live or work in a high-risk situation—something individuals have to determine on their own. Experts said that shading of the policy had created confusion that was holding people back.
Nirav Shah, MD, JD, president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, noted that public health officials have been swamped with calls from people who are trying to figure out if they are eligible to get a booster dose.
He said that in a call the evening of Nov. 18 with state health departments, “There was not a single state that voiced opposition to this move,” he told the ACIP.
Dr. Shah said that the current guidelines were well intentioned, but “in pursuit of precision, they create confusion.”
“Our concern is that eligible individuals are not receiving boosters right now as a result of this confusion,” he said.
The committee based its decision on the results of a new study of boosters in Pfizer vaccine recipients, as well as reassuring safety information that’s being collected through the CDC and FDA’s monitoring systems.
Pfizer presented the early results from a study of 10,000 people who had all received two doses of its vaccine. Half of the study participants received a third shot, or booster. The other half got a placebo.
The study is ongoing, but so far, six of the people in the booster group have gotten a COVID-19 infection with symptoms compared to 123 people who got COVID-19 in the placebo group, making boosters 95% effective at keeping people from getting sick. Most people in the study had gotten their original doses about 10 months earlier. They’ve been followed for about 10 weeks since their booster. Importantly, there were no study participants hospitalized for COVID-19 infections in either the placebo or booster group, indicating that the first two doses were still very effective at preventing severe outcomes from infection.
The majority of side effects after a third Pfizer dose were mild and temporary. Side effects like sore arms, swelling, fever, headache, and fatigue were more common in the booster group — affecting about 1 in 4 people who got a third shot. Vaccination side effects were less common after boosters than have been seen after the second dose of the vaccine.
Some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after people received vaccine boosters, but the risk for this heart inflammation appears to be extremely low, about two cases for every million doses given. There were 54 cases of myocarditis reported so far to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. So far, only 12 have met the case definition and are considered related to vaccination. Most of the reported cases are still being studied.
Black young adults: Remember this when facing discrimination
Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.
Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.
“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.
Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.
“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.
.
Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.
Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.
“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”
Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.
When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
Acknowledge the impact
Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).
Many Black people even normalize it.
“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.
And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.
“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.
It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.
“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
Embrace your emotions
Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.
He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.
“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.
“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”
This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.
“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.
It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.
This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.
Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.
Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.
“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.
“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
Utilize unique
If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.
Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.
“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.
Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.
No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.
“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.
“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.
Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.
“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.
Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.
“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.
.
Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.
Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.
“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”
Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.
When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
Acknowledge the impact
Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).
Many Black people even normalize it.
“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.
And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.
“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.
It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.
“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
Embrace your emotions
Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.
He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.
“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.
“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”
This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.
“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.
It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.
This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.
Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.
Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.
“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.
“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
Utilize unique
If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.
Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.
“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.
Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.
No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.
“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.
“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.
Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.
“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.
Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.
“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.
.
Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.
Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.
“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”
Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.
When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
Acknowledge the impact
Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).
Many Black people even normalize it.
“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.
And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.
“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.
It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.
“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
Embrace your emotions
Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.
He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.
“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.
“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”
This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.
“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.
It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.
This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.
Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.
Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.
“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.
“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
Utilize unique
If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.
Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.
“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.
Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.
No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.
“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.
“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CDC: Thirty percent of hospital workers in U.S. still unvaccinated
, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.
Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.
The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.
Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.
Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”
“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
Vaccine mandates
The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.
The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).
Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.
A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.
But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.
Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.
Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”
Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.
“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.
Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.
The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.
Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.
Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”
“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
Vaccine mandates
The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.
The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).
Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.
A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.
But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.
Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.
Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”
Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.
“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.
Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.
The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.
Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.
Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”
“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
Vaccine mandates
The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.
The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).
Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.
A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.
But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.
Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.
Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”
Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.
“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How to deal with offensive or impaired doctors
Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.
Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .
“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.
After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
Confront, correct, and/or counsel
The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.
Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.
She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.
She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:
- Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
- Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
- Get advice from a good employment attorney;
- Implement written performance improvement plans;
- Provide resources to change the behavior;
- Follow through with suspension and termination; and
- Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.
Getting impaired doctors help
Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.
Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”
Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.
Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:
- Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
- Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
- Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
- Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.
Aging doctors who won’t retire
Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.
She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.
Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.
She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”
Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.
“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.
Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .
“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.
After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
Confront, correct, and/or counsel
The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.
Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.
She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.
She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:
- Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
- Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
- Get advice from a good employment attorney;
- Implement written performance improvement plans;
- Provide resources to change the behavior;
- Follow through with suspension and termination; and
- Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.
Getting impaired doctors help
Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.
Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”
Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.
Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:
- Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
- Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
- Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
- Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.
Aging doctors who won’t retire
Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.
She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.
Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.
She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”
Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.
“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knowing what to say and do can lead to a positive outcome for the physician involved and the organization.
Misbehaving and impaired physicians put their organizations at risk, which can lead to malpractice/patient injury lawsuits, labor law and harassment claims, and a damaged reputation through negative social media reviews, said Debra Phairas, MBA, president of Practice and Liability Consultants LLC, at the annual meeting of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) .
“Verbal harassment or bullying claims can result in large dollar awards against the organizations that knew about the behavior and did nothing to stop it. Organizations can be sued for that,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls a doctor who called a female doctor “an entitled bitch” and the administrator “incompetent” in front of other staff. “He would pick on one department manager at every meeting and humiliate them in front of the others,” says Ms. Phairas.
After working with a human resources (HR) attorney and conducting independent reviews, they used a strategy Ms. Phairas calls her “3 C’s” for dealing with disruptive doctors.
Confront, correct, and/or counsel
The three C’s can work individually or together, depending on the doctor’s situation. Confronting a physician can start with an informal discussion; correcting can involve seeking a written apology that directly addresses the problem or sending a letter of admonition; and coaching or counseling can be offered. If the doctor resists those efforts, practice administrators can issue a final letter of warning and then suspend or terminate the physician, says Ms. Phairas.
Sometimes having a conversation with a disruptive doctor about the risks and consequences is enough to change the offending behavior, says Ms. Phairas.
She recalled being asked by a medical group to meet with a physician who she says was “snapping the bra straps of medical assistants in the hall — everyone there was horrified. I told him that’s not appropriate, that he was placing everyone at risk and they will terminate him if he didn’t stop. I asked for his commitment to stop, and he agreed,” says Ms. Phairas.
She also recommends implementing these strategies to prevent and deal with disruptive physicians:
- Implement a code of conduct and share it during interviews;
- Have zero tolerance policies and procedures for documenting behavior;
- Get advice from a good employment attorney;
- Implement written performance improvement plans;
- Provide resources to change the behavior;
- Follow through with suspension and termination; and
- Add to shareholder agreements a clause stating that partners/shareholders can gently ask or insist that the physician obtain counseling or help.
Getting impaired doctors help
Doctors can be impaired through substance abuse, a serious medical illness, mental illness, or age-related deterioration.
Life events such as divorce or the death of a spouse, child, or a physician partner can affect a doctor’s mental health. “In those cases, you need to have the courage to say you’re really depressed and we all agree you need to get help,” says Ms. Phairas.
She recalls one occasion in which a practice administration staff member could not locate a doctor whose patients were waiting to be seen. “He was so devastated from his divorce that he had crawled into a ball beneath his desk. She had to coax him out and tell him that they were worried about him and he needed to get help.”
Another reason doctors may not be performing well may be because of an undiagnosed medical illness. Doctors in an orthopedic group were mad at another partner who had slowed down and couldn’t help pay the expenses. “They were ready to terminate him when he went to the doctor and learned he had colon cancer,” says Ms. Phairas.
Ms. Phairas recommends that practices update their partner shareholder agreements regularly with the following:
- Include “fit for duty” examinations, especially after age 65.
- Insist that a physician be evaluated by a doctor outside the practice. The doctor may be one that they agree upon or one chosen by the local medical society president.
- Include in the agreement the clause, “Partners and employees will be subject to review for impairment due to matters including but not limited to age-related, physical, or mental conditions.”
- Establish a voting mechanism for terminating a physician.
Aging doctors who won’t retire
Some doctors have retired early because of COVID, whereas others are staying on because they are feeling financial pressures — they lost a lot of money last year and need to make up for it, says Ms. Phairas.
She warned that administrators have to be careful in dealing with older doctors because of age discrimination laws.
Doctors may not notice they are declining mentally until it becomes a problem. Ms. Phairas recalls an internist senior partner who started behaving erratically when he was 78 years old. “He wrote himself a $25,000 check from the organization’s funds without telling his partners, left a patient he should have been watching and she fell over and sued the practice, and the staff started noticing that he was forgetting or not doing things,” says Ms. Phairas.
She sought guidance from a good HR attorney and involved a malpractice attorney. She then met with the senior partner. “I reminded him of his Hippocratic Oath that he took when he became a doctor and told him that his actions were harming patients. I pleaded with him that it was time to retire. He didn’t.”
Because this physician wouldn’t retire, the practice referred to their updated shareholder agreement, which stated that they could insist that the physician undergo a neuropsychiatric assessment from a certified specialist. He didn’t pass the evaluation, which then provided evidence of his declining cognitive skills.
“All the doctors, myself, and the HR attorney talked to him about this and laid out all the facts. It was hard to say these things, but he listened and left. We went through the termination process to protect the practice and avoid litigation. The malpractice insurer also refused to renew his policy,” says Ms. Phairas.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA authorizes COVID boosters for all U.S. adults
“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.
“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.
Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.
FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.
“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.
“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.
Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.
FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.
“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.
“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.
Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.
FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.
“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Mask-wearing cuts new COVID-19 cases by 53%, study says
Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.
“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.
The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.
Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.
In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.
But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.
Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.
Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.
Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.
The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.
That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.
“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.
“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.
“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.
The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.
Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.
In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.
But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.
Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.
Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.
Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.
The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.
That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.
“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.
“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.
“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.
The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.
Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.
In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.
But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.
Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.
Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.
Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.
The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.
That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.
“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.
“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE BMJ
Medical technology should keep patient in mind
Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.
Threats to the physician-patient relationship
Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.
In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.1
Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.
After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.
Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”2
We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.
Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.
In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.
‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’
John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:
I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.
But, given time, doctors are patients, too.
And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,
Or in it, through it, to the mystery
Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go
Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,
Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,
I won’t insist the patient is a soul,
But he’s a something, possibly laughable,
Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.
Not quite containable on a bed chart.
Where science touches man it turns to art.3
This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.
Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.4 As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
References
1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1
2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.
3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.
4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.
Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.
Threats to the physician-patient relationship
Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.
In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.1
Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.
After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.
Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”2
We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.
Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.
In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.
‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’
John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:
I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.
But, given time, doctors are patients, too.
And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,
Or in it, through it, to the mystery
Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go
Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,
Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,
I won’t insist the patient is a soul,
But he’s a something, possibly laughable,
Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.
Not quite containable on a bed chart.
Where science touches man it turns to art.3
This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.
Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.4 As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
References
1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1
2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.
3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.
4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.
Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.
Threats to the physician-patient relationship
Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.
In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.1
Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.
After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.
Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”2
We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.
Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.
In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.
‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’
John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:
I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.
But, given time, doctors are patients, too.
And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,
Or in it, through it, to the mystery
Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go
Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,
Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,
I won’t insist the patient is a soul,
But he’s a something, possibly laughable,
Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.
Not quite containable on a bed chart.
Where science touches man it turns to art.3
This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.
Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.4 As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.
References
1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1
2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.
3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.
4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.
FDA approves new interferon for polycythemia vera
, according to an agency press release.
Besremi has a longer half-life than do other pegylated interferon-alfas, allowing for dosing every 2 weeks instead of weekly. If red blood cell counts remain normal for a year, patients have the option of switching to once-monthly dosing. As with similar products, Besremi is self-administered as a subcutaneous injection.
It’s the first interferon approved in the United States specifically for polycythemia vera. Besremi is also approved for upfront therapy, unlike FDA’s first approval for the condition, the oral JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is indicated only after hydroxyurea failure.
Taiwan-based maker PharmaEssentia said in another press release that it will roll Besremi out to the U.S. market in the coming weeks.
“As we begin working closely with the community to integrate this important treatment into clinical practice, we also continue to expand our scientific efforts to unlock the full potential of our pioneering molecule,” said Ko-Chung Lin, PhD, the company’s CEO.
As for unlocking the full potential, Besremi is under investigation for other interferon indications, including myelofibrosis, leukemia, and chronic hepatitis.
The FDA’s approval was based on results in 51 adults treated for an average of 5 years; 31 (61%) had a complete hematologic response, defined as a hematocrit below 45% with no phlebotomy for at least 2 months, plus normal platelet and white cell counts, normal spleen size, and no blood clots.
“Noninferiority to hydroxyurea regarding haematological response and normal spleen size was not shown at 12 months. However, response to ropeginterferon alfa-2b continued to increase over time with improved responses compared with hydroxyurea at 36 months,” investigators noted in an earlier report (Lancet Haematol. 2020 Mar;7[3]:e196-e208).
Besremi carries the same boxed warning as those of peginterferon alfa-2b (Pegintron) and peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys), which notes the risk of life-threatening neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, ischemic, and infectious disorders. Related contraindications include severe depression and other psychiatric problems; liver impairment; serious or untreated autoimmune disease, and immunosuppression following organ transplant.
Influenza-like illness, arthralgia, fatigue, pruritis, nasopharyngitis, and musculoskeletal pain were the most common adverse events in studies, occurring in over 40% of subjects. Urinary tract infections, transient ischemic attacks, and depression were the most frequent serious complications, occurring in over 4%.
Labeling also notes the risk for fetal harm and the need for effective contraception.
Besremi was approved in Europe in 2019 and is approved in Taiwan and South Korea.
Polycythemia vera is a rare condition thought to be caused by acquired bone marrow stem cell mutations that trigger an overproduction of red blood cells. Patients are at increased risk of blood clots and emboli, and subsequent heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. There’s also the risk of transformation to secondary myelofibrosis or leukemia.
, according to an agency press release.
Besremi has a longer half-life than do other pegylated interferon-alfas, allowing for dosing every 2 weeks instead of weekly. If red blood cell counts remain normal for a year, patients have the option of switching to once-monthly dosing. As with similar products, Besremi is self-administered as a subcutaneous injection.
It’s the first interferon approved in the United States specifically for polycythemia vera. Besremi is also approved for upfront therapy, unlike FDA’s first approval for the condition, the oral JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is indicated only after hydroxyurea failure.
Taiwan-based maker PharmaEssentia said in another press release that it will roll Besremi out to the U.S. market in the coming weeks.
“As we begin working closely with the community to integrate this important treatment into clinical practice, we also continue to expand our scientific efforts to unlock the full potential of our pioneering molecule,” said Ko-Chung Lin, PhD, the company’s CEO.
As for unlocking the full potential, Besremi is under investigation for other interferon indications, including myelofibrosis, leukemia, and chronic hepatitis.
The FDA’s approval was based on results in 51 adults treated for an average of 5 years; 31 (61%) had a complete hematologic response, defined as a hematocrit below 45% with no phlebotomy for at least 2 months, plus normal platelet and white cell counts, normal spleen size, and no blood clots.
“Noninferiority to hydroxyurea regarding haematological response and normal spleen size was not shown at 12 months. However, response to ropeginterferon alfa-2b continued to increase over time with improved responses compared with hydroxyurea at 36 months,” investigators noted in an earlier report (Lancet Haematol. 2020 Mar;7[3]:e196-e208).
Besremi carries the same boxed warning as those of peginterferon alfa-2b (Pegintron) and peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys), which notes the risk of life-threatening neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, ischemic, and infectious disorders. Related contraindications include severe depression and other psychiatric problems; liver impairment; serious or untreated autoimmune disease, and immunosuppression following organ transplant.
Influenza-like illness, arthralgia, fatigue, pruritis, nasopharyngitis, and musculoskeletal pain were the most common adverse events in studies, occurring in over 40% of subjects. Urinary tract infections, transient ischemic attacks, and depression were the most frequent serious complications, occurring in over 4%.
Labeling also notes the risk for fetal harm and the need for effective contraception.
Besremi was approved in Europe in 2019 and is approved in Taiwan and South Korea.
Polycythemia vera is a rare condition thought to be caused by acquired bone marrow stem cell mutations that trigger an overproduction of red blood cells. Patients are at increased risk of blood clots and emboli, and subsequent heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. There’s also the risk of transformation to secondary myelofibrosis or leukemia.
, according to an agency press release.
Besremi has a longer half-life than do other pegylated interferon-alfas, allowing for dosing every 2 weeks instead of weekly. If red blood cell counts remain normal for a year, patients have the option of switching to once-monthly dosing. As with similar products, Besremi is self-administered as a subcutaneous injection.
It’s the first interferon approved in the United States specifically for polycythemia vera. Besremi is also approved for upfront therapy, unlike FDA’s first approval for the condition, the oral JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is indicated only after hydroxyurea failure.
Taiwan-based maker PharmaEssentia said in another press release that it will roll Besremi out to the U.S. market in the coming weeks.
“As we begin working closely with the community to integrate this important treatment into clinical practice, we also continue to expand our scientific efforts to unlock the full potential of our pioneering molecule,” said Ko-Chung Lin, PhD, the company’s CEO.
As for unlocking the full potential, Besremi is under investigation for other interferon indications, including myelofibrosis, leukemia, and chronic hepatitis.
The FDA’s approval was based on results in 51 adults treated for an average of 5 years; 31 (61%) had a complete hematologic response, defined as a hematocrit below 45% with no phlebotomy for at least 2 months, plus normal platelet and white cell counts, normal spleen size, and no blood clots.
“Noninferiority to hydroxyurea regarding haematological response and normal spleen size was not shown at 12 months. However, response to ropeginterferon alfa-2b continued to increase over time with improved responses compared with hydroxyurea at 36 months,” investigators noted in an earlier report (Lancet Haematol. 2020 Mar;7[3]:e196-e208).
Besremi carries the same boxed warning as those of peginterferon alfa-2b (Pegintron) and peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys), which notes the risk of life-threatening neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, ischemic, and infectious disorders. Related contraindications include severe depression and other psychiatric problems; liver impairment; serious or untreated autoimmune disease, and immunosuppression following organ transplant.
Influenza-like illness, arthralgia, fatigue, pruritis, nasopharyngitis, and musculoskeletal pain were the most common adverse events in studies, occurring in over 40% of subjects. Urinary tract infections, transient ischemic attacks, and depression were the most frequent serious complications, occurring in over 4%.
Labeling also notes the risk for fetal harm and the need for effective contraception.
Besremi was approved in Europe in 2019 and is approved in Taiwan and South Korea.
Polycythemia vera is a rare condition thought to be caused by acquired bone marrow stem cell mutations that trigger an overproduction of red blood cells. Patients are at increased risk of blood clots and emboli, and subsequent heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. There’s also the risk of transformation to secondary myelofibrosis or leukemia.
The neurological super powers of grandma are real
Deer, COVID, how?
Usually humans cannot get close enough to a deer to really be face-to-face, so it’s easy to question how on Earth deer are contracting COVID-19. Well, stranger things have happened, and honestly, we’ve just stopped questioning most of them.
Exhibit A comes to us from a Penn State University study: Eighty percent of deer sampled in Iowa in December 2020 and January 2021 – as part of the state’s chronic wasting disease surveillance program – were found to be positive for COVID-19.
A statement from the university said that “white-tailed deer may be a reservoir for the virus to continually circulate and raise concerns about the emergence of new strains that may prove a threat to wildlife and, possibly, to humans.” The investigators also suggested that deer probably caught the virus from humans and then transmitted it to other deer.
If you or someone you know is a hunter or a white-tailed deer, it’s best to proceed with caution. There’s no evidence that COVID-19 has jumped from deer to humans, but hunters should wear masks and gloves while working with deer, worrying not just about the deer’s face, but also … you know, the gastrointestinal parts, Robert Salata, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told Syracuse.com. It also shouldn’t be too risky to eat venison, he said, just make sure the meat is cooked thoroughly.
The more you know!
The neurological super powers of grandma are real
What is it about grandmothers that makes them seem almost magical at times? They somehow always know how you feel. And they can almost always tell when something is wrong. They also seem to be the biggest ally a child will have against his or her parents.
So what makes these super matriarchs? The answer is in the brain.
Apparently there’s a function in the brains of grandmothers geared toward “emotional empathy.” James Rilling, PhD, of Emory University, lead author of a recent study focused on looking at the brain function of grandmothers, suggested that they’re neurologically tapped into feeling how their grandchildren feel: “If their grandchild is smiling, they’re feeling the child’s joy. And if their grandchild is crying, they’re feeling the child’s pain and distress.”
And then there’s the cute factor. Never underestimate a child’s ability to manipulate his or her grandmother’s brain.
So how do the researchers know this? Functional MRI showed more brain activity in the parts of the brain that deal with emotional empathy and movement in the participating grandmas when shown pictures of their grandchildren. Images of their own adult children lit up areas more associated with cognitive empathy. So less emotional and more mental/logical understanding.
Kids, don’t tell Mom about the secret midnight snacks with grandma. She wouldn’t get it.
Then there’s the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests that women tend to live longer to provide some kind of evolutionary benefit to their children and grandchildren. Evidence also exists that children with positive engagement from their grandmothers tend to have better social and academic outcomes, behavior, and physical health.
A lot of credit on how children turn out, of course, goes to parents, but more can be said about grandmas. Don’t let the age and freshly baked cookies fool you. They have neurologic superpowers within.
Brain cleanup on aisle 5
You’ve got your local grocery store down. You know the ins and outs; you know where everything is. Last week you did your trip in record time. This week, however, you have to stop at a different store. Same chain, but a different location. You stroll in, confidently walk toward the first aisle for your fruits and veggies, and ... it’s all ice cream. Oops.
There’s a lot we don’t understand about the brain, including how it remembers familiar environments to avoid confusion. Or why it fails to do so, as with our grocery store example. However, thanks to a study from the University of Arizona, we may have an answer.
For the experiment, a group of participants watched a video tour of three virtual cities. Those cities were very similar, being laid out in basically identical fashion. Stores could be found in the same places, but the identity of those stores varied. Some stores were in all three cities, some were in two, and some were unique. Participants were asked to memorize the layouts, and those who got things more than 80% correct ran through the test again, only this time their brain activity was monitored through MRI.
In general, brain activity was similar for the participants; after all, they were recalling similar environments. However, when asked about stores that appeared in multiple cities, brain activity varied dramatically. This indicated to the researchers that the brain was recalling shared stores as if they were more dissimilar than two completely disparate and unique stores, a concept often known to brain scientists as “repulsion.” It also indicates that the memories regarding shared environments are stored in the prefrontal cortex, not the hippocampus, which typically handles memory.
The researchers plan to apply this information to questions about diseases such as Alzheimer’s, so the next time you get turned around in a weirdly unfamiliar grocery store, just think: “It’s okay, I’m helping to solve a terrible brain disease.”
The real endgame: Friction is the winner
Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, we’re about to ruin it for you.
For those still with us, here’s the spoiler: Thanos would not have been able to snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.
Saad Bhamla, PhD, of Georgia Tech University’s school of chemical and biomolecular engineering, had been studying powerful and ultrafast motions in living organisms along with several colleagues before the movie came out in 2018, and when they saw the finger-snapping scene it got them wondering.
Being scientists of course, they had no choice. They got out their high-speed imaging equipment, automated image processing software, and dynamic force sensors and analyzed finger snaps, paying close attention to friction by covering fingers with “different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos,” according to a statement on Eurekalert.
With finger snaps, it’s all about the rotational velocity. The angular acceleration involved is the fastest ever measured in a human, with a professional baseball pitcher’s throwing arm a distant second.
Dr. Bhamla’s reaction to their work explains why scientists are the ones doing science. “When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair,” he said in the written statement.
Rotational velocities dropped dramatically when the friction-reducing thimbles were used, so there was no snap. Which means that billions and billions of fictional lives could have been saved if the filmmakers had just talked to the right scientist.
That scientist, clearly, is Dr. Bhamla, who said that “this is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data.”
Deer, COVID, how?
Usually humans cannot get close enough to a deer to really be face-to-face, so it’s easy to question how on Earth deer are contracting COVID-19. Well, stranger things have happened, and honestly, we’ve just stopped questioning most of them.
Exhibit A comes to us from a Penn State University study: Eighty percent of deer sampled in Iowa in December 2020 and January 2021 – as part of the state’s chronic wasting disease surveillance program – were found to be positive for COVID-19.
A statement from the university said that “white-tailed deer may be a reservoir for the virus to continually circulate and raise concerns about the emergence of new strains that may prove a threat to wildlife and, possibly, to humans.” The investigators also suggested that deer probably caught the virus from humans and then transmitted it to other deer.
If you or someone you know is a hunter or a white-tailed deer, it’s best to proceed with caution. There’s no evidence that COVID-19 has jumped from deer to humans, but hunters should wear masks and gloves while working with deer, worrying not just about the deer’s face, but also … you know, the gastrointestinal parts, Robert Salata, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told Syracuse.com. It also shouldn’t be too risky to eat venison, he said, just make sure the meat is cooked thoroughly.
The more you know!
The neurological super powers of grandma are real
What is it about grandmothers that makes them seem almost magical at times? They somehow always know how you feel. And they can almost always tell when something is wrong. They also seem to be the biggest ally a child will have against his or her parents.
So what makes these super matriarchs? The answer is in the brain.
Apparently there’s a function in the brains of grandmothers geared toward “emotional empathy.” James Rilling, PhD, of Emory University, lead author of a recent study focused on looking at the brain function of grandmothers, suggested that they’re neurologically tapped into feeling how their grandchildren feel: “If their grandchild is smiling, they’re feeling the child’s joy. And if their grandchild is crying, they’re feeling the child’s pain and distress.”
And then there’s the cute factor. Never underestimate a child’s ability to manipulate his or her grandmother’s brain.
So how do the researchers know this? Functional MRI showed more brain activity in the parts of the brain that deal with emotional empathy and movement in the participating grandmas when shown pictures of their grandchildren. Images of their own adult children lit up areas more associated with cognitive empathy. So less emotional and more mental/logical understanding.
Kids, don’t tell Mom about the secret midnight snacks with grandma. She wouldn’t get it.
Then there’s the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests that women tend to live longer to provide some kind of evolutionary benefit to their children and grandchildren. Evidence also exists that children with positive engagement from their grandmothers tend to have better social and academic outcomes, behavior, and physical health.
A lot of credit on how children turn out, of course, goes to parents, but more can be said about grandmas. Don’t let the age and freshly baked cookies fool you. They have neurologic superpowers within.
Brain cleanup on aisle 5
You’ve got your local grocery store down. You know the ins and outs; you know where everything is. Last week you did your trip in record time. This week, however, you have to stop at a different store. Same chain, but a different location. You stroll in, confidently walk toward the first aisle for your fruits and veggies, and ... it’s all ice cream. Oops.
There’s a lot we don’t understand about the brain, including how it remembers familiar environments to avoid confusion. Or why it fails to do so, as with our grocery store example. However, thanks to a study from the University of Arizona, we may have an answer.
For the experiment, a group of participants watched a video tour of three virtual cities. Those cities were very similar, being laid out in basically identical fashion. Stores could be found in the same places, but the identity of those stores varied. Some stores were in all three cities, some were in two, and some were unique. Participants were asked to memorize the layouts, and those who got things more than 80% correct ran through the test again, only this time their brain activity was monitored through MRI.
In general, brain activity was similar for the participants; after all, they were recalling similar environments. However, when asked about stores that appeared in multiple cities, brain activity varied dramatically. This indicated to the researchers that the brain was recalling shared stores as if they were more dissimilar than two completely disparate and unique stores, a concept often known to brain scientists as “repulsion.” It also indicates that the memories regarding shared environments are stored in the prefrontal cortex, not the hippocampus, which typically handles memory.
The researchers plan to apply this information to questions about diseases such as Alzheimer’s, so the next time you get turned around in a weirdly unfamiliar grocery store, just think: “It’s okay, I’m helping to solve a terrible brain disease.”
The real endgame: Friction is the winner
Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, we’re about to ruin it for you.
For those still with us, here’s the spoiler: Thanos would not have been able to snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.
Saad Bhamla, PhD, of Georgia Tech University’s school of chemical and biomolecular engineering, had been studying powerful and ultrafast motions in living organisms along with several colleagues before the movie came out in 2018, and when they saw the finger-snapping scene it got them wondering.
Being scientists of course, they had no choice. They got out their high-speed imaging equipment, automated image processing software, and dynamic force sensors and analyzed finger snaps, paying close attention to friction by covering fingers with “different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos,” according to a statement on Eurekalert.
With finger snaps, it’s all about the rotational velocity. The angular acceleration involved is the fastest ever measured in a human, with a professional baseball pitcher’s throwing arm a distant second.
Dr. Bhamla’s reaction to their work explains why scientists are the ones doing science. “When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair,” he said in the written statement.
Rotational velocities dropped dramatically when the friction-reducing thimbles were used, so there was no snap. Which means that billions and billions of fictional lives could have been saved if the filmmakers had just talked to the right scientist.
That scientist, clearly, is Dr. Bhamla, who said that “this is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data.”
Deer, COVID, how?
Usually humans cannot get close enough to a deer to really be face-to-face, so it’s easy to question how on Earth deer are contracting COVID-19. Well, stranger things have happened, and honestly, we’ve just stopped questioning most of them.
Exhibit A comes to us from a Penn State University study: Eighty percent of deer sampled in Iowa in December 2020 and January 2021 – as part of the state’s chronic wasting disease surveillance program – were found to be positive for COVID-19.
A statement from the university said that “white-tailed deer may be a reservoir for the virus to continually circulate and raise concerns about the emergence of new strains that may prove a threat to wildlife and, possibly, to humans.” The investigators also suggested that deer probably caught the virus from humans and then transmitted it to other deer.
If you or someone you know is a hunter or a white-tailed deer, it’s best to proceed with caution. There’s no evidence that COVID-19 has jumped from deer to humans, but hunters should wear masks and gloves while working with deer, worrying not just about the deer’s face, but also … you know, the gastrointestinal parts, Robert Salata, MD, of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told Syracuse.com. It also shouldn’t be too risky to eat venison, he said, just make sure the meat is cooked thoroughly.
The more you know!
The neurological super powers of grandma are real
What is it about grandmothers that makes them seem almost magical at times? They somehow always know how you feel. And they can almost always tell when something is wrong. They also seem to be the biggest ally a child will have against his or her parents.
So what makes these super matriarchs? The answer is in the brain.
Apparently there’s a function in the brains of grandmothers geared toward “emotional empathy.” James Rilling, PhD, of Emory University, lead author of a recent study focused on looking at the brain function of grandmothers, suggested that they’re neurologically tapped into feeling how their grandchildren feel: “If their grandchild is smiling, they’re feeling the child’s joy. And if their grandchild is crying, they’re feeling the child’s pain and distress.”
And then there’s the cute factor. Never underestimate a child’s ability to manipulate his or her grandmother’s brain.
So how do the researchers know this? Functional MRI showed more brain activity in the parts of the brain that deal with emotional empathy and movement in the participating grandmas when shown pictures of their grandchildren. Images of their own adult children lit up areas more associated with cognitive empathy. So less emotional and more mental/logical understanding.
Kids, don’t tell Mom about the secret midnight snacks with grandma. She wouldn’t get it.
Then there’s the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests that women tend to live longer to provide some kind of evolutionary benefit to their children and grandchildren. Evidence also exists that children with positive engagement from their grandmothers tend to have better social and academic outcomes, behavior, and physical health.
A lot of credit on how children turn out, of course, goes to parents, but more can be said about grandmas. Don’t let the age and freshly baked cookies fool you. They have neurologic superpowers within.
Brain cleanup on aisle 5
You’ve got your local grocery store down. You know the ins and outs; you know where everything is. Last week you did your trip in record time. This week, however, you have to stop at a different store. Same chain, but a different location. You stroll in, confidently walk toward the first aisle for your fruits and veggies, and ... it’s all ice cream. Oops.
There’s a lot we don’t understand about the brain, including how it remembers familiar environments to avoid confusion. Or why it fails to do so, as with our grocery store example. However, thanks to a study from the University of Arizona, we may have an answer.
For the experiment, a group of participants watched a video tour of three virtual cities. Those cities were very similar, being laid out in basically identical fashion. Stores could be found in the same places, but the identity of those stores varied. Some stores were in all three cities, some were in two, and some were unique. Participants were asked to memorize the layouts, and those who got things more than 80% correct ran through the test again, only this time their brain activity was monitored through MRI.
In general, brain activity was similar for the participants; after all, they were recalling similar environments. However, when asked about stores that appeared in multiple cities, brain activity varied dramatically. This indicated to the researchers that the brain was recalling shared stores as if they were more dissimilar than two completely disparate and unique stores, a concept often known to brain scientists as “repulsion.” It also indicates that the memories regarding shared environments are stored in the prefrontal cortex, not the hippocampus, which typically handles memory.
The researchers plan to apply this information to questions about diseases such as Alzheimer’s, so the next time you get turned around in a weirdly unfamiliar grocery store, just think: “It’s okay, I’m helping to solve a terrible brain disease.”
The real endgame: Friction is the winner
Spoiler alert! If you haven’t seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, we’re about to ruin it for you.
For those still with us, here’s the spoiler: Thanos would not have been able to snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.
Saad Bhamla, PhD, of Georgia Tech University’s school of chemical and biomolecular engineering, had been studying powerful and ultrafast motions in living organisms along with several colleagues before the movie came out in 2018, and when they saw the finger-snapping scene it got them wondering.
Being scientists of course, they had no choice. They got out their high-speed imaging equipment, automated image processing software, and dynamic force sensors and analyzed finger snaps, paying close attention to friction by covering fingers with “different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos,” according to a statement on Eurekalert.
With finger snaps, it’s all about the rotational velocity. The angular acceleration involved is the fastest ever measured in a human, with a professional baseball pitcher’s throwing arm a distant second.
Dr. Bhamla’s reaction to their work explains why scientists are the ones doing science. “When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair,” he said in the written statement.
Rotational velocities dropped dramatically when the friction-reducing thimbles were used, so there was no snap. Which means that billions and billions of fictional lives could have been saved if the filmmakers had just talked to the right scientist.
That scientist, clearly, is Dr. Bhamla, who said that “this is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data.”